There really isn't another game quite like it. Unfortunately, there isn't another game with issues quite like Creed's, either. Assassin's Creed tries to be a stealth game, an action game, a stealth kill game and a platformer, and to innovate in each category. But for each amazing step forward, Creed takes a half-step back.

Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of Assassin's Creed; each element of the game sacrifices too much in order to squeeze other major elements in. Instead of a true stealth engine, you have awkward "hide spots" to accommodate the free roaming. Combat is either too easy or too hard, lacking the brilliance of a dedicated action title. And the free-roaming, bound as it is to mission objectives that would be fine in a more linear game, is just unsatisfying. Each element of the game is individually interesting, but as a whole the package feels incomplete and patchwork more than innovative.

After watching the Gametrailers.com review my enthusiasm is all but gone. And mainly because of one thing. There are two moments in the video, and the reviewer discusses it, where Altair assissinates someone just feet away from another person and the other person looks down, sees the dead body, and with Altair standing directly in front of him says, 'who is responsible for this deed?'. Jeez. How friggin lame is that? No amount of pretty graphics or wall climbing can forgive, what for me, is the core of the game-stealth. At that moment I would be taken completely out of the game. That adn the fact that the enemies all stand around and take their turns in combat all but diminishes the two fundamental aspects of the game for me.

Gonna rent now. I definitely want to see the world of AC, but my concern over the stealth mechanic and the fact that virtually EVERY reviewer I have read or watched says there is no motivation to return to the game once complete delegates this to rental-only status.

There really isn't another game quite like it. Unfortunately, there isn't another game with issues quite like Creed's, either. Assassin's Creed tries to be a stealth game, an action game, a stealth kill game and a platformer, and to innovate in each category. But for each amazing step forward, Creed takes a half-step back.

Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of Assassin's Creed; each element of the game sacrifices too much in order to squeeze other major elements in. Instead of a true stealth engine, you have awkward "hide spots" to accommodate the free roaming. Combat is either too easy or too hard, lacking the brilliance of a dedicated action title. And the free-roaming, bound as it is to mission objectives that would be fine in a more linear game, is just unsatisfying. Each element of the game is individually interesting, but as a whole the package feels incomplete and patchwork more than innovative.

My gut feeling about this game was that it was designed by committee. No doubt a committee made up of very skilled members, but a committee none the less. IMO based upon what I've read, it seems that this game has stealth, some action, stalking and a bit of platforming solely for the purpose of covering all the different gameplay mechanic bases. When I read and watched previews, it just didn't seem that this game had a very well defined premise. At least not to the extent that Looking Glass had with the Thief series or Ubisoft Montreal had with the Splinter Cell series.

Of course I haven't even played the game yet, so I'm quite possibly just talking through my hat.

After watching the Gametrailers.com review my enthusiasm is all but gone. And mainly because of one thing. There are two moments in the video, and the reviewer discusses it, where Altair assissinates someone just feet away from another person and the other person looks down, sees the dead body, and with Altair standing directly in front of him says, 'who is responsible for this deed?'. Jeez. How friggin lame is that? No amount of pretty graphics or wall climbing can forgive, what for me, is the core of the game-stealth. At that moment I would be taken completely out of the game. That adn the fact that the enemies all stand around and take their turns in combat all but diminishes the two fundamental aspects of the game for me.

Gonna rent now. I definitely want to see the world of AC, but my concern over the stealth mechanic and the fact that virtually EVERY reviewer I have read or watched says there is no motivation to return to the game once complete delegates this to rental-only status.

Too bad.

Ah crap. I haven't seen that review yet, but that bit about killing the guy and the NPC next to ya has dirt for brains kills any interest I had. I also wanted this game for the stealth aspect and it sounds like they borked it up.

From GameSpot: "PS3 owners are blessed with a slightly more solid frame rate."

IGN wrote (about the PS3 version): "The framerate is considerably worse, so much so that it begins to affect gameplay in the later levels."

What the hell?

the mainstream game review machine is broken. it's been broken for a while, actually, but it's only in the last year or so that it's become extremely obvious...

when it comes to deciding on whether or not to get a game, you're much better off reading game boards, trusting your instincts, &, if still stuck, flipping a coin...

Quote from: mikeg on November 13, 2007, 11:50:00 PM

I definitely want to see the world of AC, but my concern over the stealth mechanic and the fact that virtually EVERY reviewer I have read or watched says there is no motivation to return to the game once complete delegates this to rental-only status.

while i understand what you're saying, & realize many people feel the same way, i gotta admit, whether i'll replay/return to a game has never been a factor in deciding whether i'll get a game. am i just strange?...

Logged

"... i'm not against some 'monkey catching'... but i'd rather be collecting pants..."- snake, 'snake vs monkey' (mgs3:se)

while i understand what you're saying, & realize many people feel the same way, i gotta admit, whether i'll replay/return to a game has never been a factor in deciding whether i'll get a game. am i just strange?...

No, you're not strange. I am sure alot of people who COLLECT video games do the same. I do not however. I play them and when done, they're gone. If the game offers me no replay whatsoever I just can't see the point in spending $65 for what an $8 rental could give me. Pure and simple.

If the combat was God of War fun and the stealth and openendness had been as anticipated I could see me playing this 3 to 4 times like some others I have kept, but I just haven't seen evidence that this game will now have that appeal.

If I rent it and it proves to be freakin awesome to me, I will pick up for multiple replays.

So far it looks like IGN and Eurogamer have the most informative reviews going.

why's that, just because they have it rated lower? sounds pretty cynical to me

Not because they're lower, but because they go into the issues alot more, which ultimately makes me decide if it's worth my time. I always want to hear the cons, then decide if it's enough to steer me away.

Gamespot's review seems very weak to me. He doesn't go into any detail about the repetitive nature of the missions, NPC phrases, and dumb AI which is so very obvious in the vids i've watched.

Maybe because the GS reviewer didn't think they were issues? It stands to reason that a 9.0 review is going to have fewer negatives than a 7.7 (frankly the reviewer wouldn't be doing their job otherwise).

while i understand what you're saying, & realize many people feel the same way, i gotta admit, whether i'll replay/return to a game has never been a factor in deciding whether i'll get a game. am i just strange?...

Not at all. I only replay games I really, really, REALLY enjoy...

I don't necessarily buy games based on replay value either. My reasons for buying them are: (1) It's unlikely to be available for rental in my city (as are most Wii games), (2) I won't continuously play it until completion, which will result in multiple rentals and end up costing the same as buying it (KOTOR and Elder Srolls come to mind), (3) If it's older and I buy it at bargain prices, I can trade it later and be out little more than the rental cost.

The only replay I really look for is coop, in which case I'll buy it because I can play it again with my kids, nephew or friends online. That being said it generally has to be an excellent title in order for me to want to bother playing it cooperatively. All that being said, AC will still only a best be a rental for me.

No, you're not strange. I am sure alot of people who COLLECT video games do the same. I do not however. I play them and when done, they're gone. If the game offers me no replay whatsoever I just can't see the point in spending $65 for what an $8 rental could give me. Pure and simple.

yeah,... while i don't really 'collect' games, i do like holding onto the ones i've enjoyed, on the off-chance that i just might wanna replay them sometime, & they won't be available otherwise... but, come to think of it, that probably isn't gonna really be much of a concern with ac for a little while ...

Logged

"... i'm not against some 'monkey catching'... but i'd rather be collecting pants..."- snake, 'snake vs monkey' (mgs3:se)

After reading Eurogamers review and Gamespot's review (probably the two most trusted for me) to see two differing ends of the spectrum of score, I am still going to pick this up. It sounds fun, interesting, innovative, different, and atmospheric. Maybe I will get bored of it, but I will just sell it. I would rather pay 10-15 bucks (the game minus how much I get for it in sale or trade) than 8 to rent and be able to have it as long as I want or trade it or sell it or whatever, and frankly I am just intrigued to play it.

So far it looks like IGN and Eurogamer have the most informative reviews going.

why's that, just because they have it rated lower? sounds pretty cynical to me

Not because they're lower, but because they go into the issues alot more, which ultimately makes me decide if it's worth my time. I always want to hear the cons, then decide if it's enough to steer me away.

Gamespot's review seems very weak to me. He doesn't go into any detail about the repetitive nature of the missions, NPC phrases, and dumb AI which is so very obvious in the vids i've watched.

Maybe because the GS reviewer didn't think they were issues? It stands to reason that a 9.0 review is going to have fewer negatives than a 7.7 (frankly the reviewer wouldn't be doing their job otherwise).

If the AI just stands around oblivious to everything while you kill someone next to him, or patiently waits their turn for you to kill them next in a fight, it then becomes more than a subjective opinion on whether it's an issue or not.

If the reviewer chooses that it doesn't kill the game for him/her, then at least let the readers know the issue exists.

I chalk most of the disparity in reviews to the degree to which the game's problems bother the reviewer. No game is perfect, and flaws in the game are usually pretty objective. The degree to which you can overlook them often determines your enjoyment of the game. With AC, there are obviously problems with the AI, which is a gamebreaker for some, whereas it won't impact my enjoyment of the game much, if at all. I read reviews to find out a game's successes and failures, and then make up my own mind based on how much those elements matter to me.

Logged

"Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip? To get to the same side." - The Big Bang Theory

I chalk most of the disparity in reviews to the degree to which the game's problems bother the reviewer. No game is perfect, and flaws in the game are usually pretty objective. The degree to which you can overlook them often determines your enjoyment of the game.

I agree completely. I just watched the Game Trailers review. It really says almost everything the IGN review says (well, not the silly top 5 disappointments line). The big differences are that the GT guy clearly absolutely loved the story and the IGN guy seemed to hate it. I also think the GT reviewer is so blown away by the good in the game (as well as the new elements it introduces) that while he sees many of the same problems, they just don't matter to him as much as they clearly did the IGN reviewer.

I am torn. When the lower score reviews started popping it seemed to make my buying decision easy and I ran out and picked up Mario Galaxy (which is awesome). But now, I feel like I may just do what I shouldn't, and buy both this week. God knows my current game load is huge as it is, and money is very tight with the holiday looming, but AC just looks stunning. And damnit, the new 360 owner in me wants me to buy a freaking game for it!

I chalk most of the disparity in reviews to the degree to which the game's problems bother the reviewer. No game is perfect, and flaws in the game are usually pretty objective. The degree to which you can overlook them often determines your enjoyment of the game. With AC, there are obviously problems with the AI, which is a gamebreaker for some, whereas it won't impact my enjoyment of the game much, if at all. I read reviews to find out a game's successes and failures, and then make up my own mind based on how much those elements matter to me.

So far it looks like IGN and Eurogamer have the most informative reviews going.

why's that, just because they have it rated lower? sounds pretty cynical to me

Not because they're lower, but because they go into the issues alot more, which ultimately makes me decide if it's worth my time. I always want to hear the cons, then decide if it's enough to steer me away.

Gamespot's review seems very weak to me. He doesn't go into any detail about the repetitive nature of the missions, NPC phrases, and dumb AI which is so very obvious in the vids i've watched.

Maybe because the GS reviewer didn't think they were issues? It stands to reason that a 9.0 review is going to have fewer negatives than a 7.7 (frankly the reviewer wouldn't be doing their job otherwise).

If the AI just stands around oblivious to everything while you kill someone next to him, or patiently waits their turn for you to kill them next in a fight, it then becomes more than a subjective opinion on whether it's an issue or not.

Some of it boils down to realism vs. enjoyment. There seems to be a knock on most steath games for bad AI. Is it realistic for guards to "forget" about you within 30 seconds? No. But would it make for a fun game to have guards relentlessly pursue you for 20 minutes? Again, no. There needs to be a happy medium. It looks as if AC certainly leans more towards the 30 second extreme, which apparently bothers many people. I personally prefer less AI to more, but that's just my personal preference.

Same thing holds true for the combat mechanic. Seems to me that combat simply wouldn't be fun if you had half a dozen guards swarming all over you at once. Sure it makes the waiting enemies look a bit silly, but I'd rather have an enjoyable combat mechanic with some silly visuals than a button-mashing hack fest against multiple enemies. Again, different strokes and all that.

I'm still debating on whether I want to take the plunge this week or not. I'm leaning towards no, but we'll see how my willpower holds out.

so, the first mission (which also acts as a tutorial) is pretty fun. The graphics are nice but there seems to be an oddness to them I can't quite put my finger on. combat takes a bit getting used to, but it does indeed look like they nerfed the enemy AI so they won't swarm you still, I had a blast climbing around the beginning level and taking out the Christians

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

I am personally going with Gamespot because I have for years and IGN seem more often to be off the mark with their reviews. I like Hitman to a point I hate Splinter Cell and Metal Gear, I could not stand Prince of Persia with all of the puzzle crap. The game like every other game out there has its ups and down. So it is not GTA and that Pretty face doll lied, when she said you can assassinate you target when and where every you want to. According to IGN it is scripted to a particular area. Aside from that the game is going to allow me to keep busy while I am working my way up to the kill instead of sitting in the shadows time NPC movements forever just to get to the next shadow. I will be spending my $60 buck on it and if and when I get board of it I will trade it in. So far all other review look promising but as we all know "to each his own"

7ish from all three EGM reviews and similar from IGN. The 1Up review makes it sound pretty good, just marred by some technical hiccups. Sounds like a fun game if your expectations aren't too high and it will be going on my Christmas list.

I'm pretty okay with the enemies waiting and fighting one on one. Makes combat more manageable, and reminds me of the old Errol Flynn movies. It worked very well in Sands of Time, in that you were fighting one at a time, but you could switch from one enemy to another at will. Took some getting used to, but led to a very fluid fighting system that I liked.

I'm also not terribly worried about the AI issue quoted. You could find AI screwups in just about every game. How come in every stealth game, the guards never notice that their buddies are going missing one by one? It's entirely possible that the example given is an isolated incident.

I'm still picking it up tomorrow. I've certainly liked enough games that the reviewers liked less than this. If I didn't buy games that were reviewed at a 75-80 level, I never would've bought the Fatal Frame games, for example.

I'm still picking it up tomorrow. I've certainly liked enough games that the reviewers liked less than this. If I didn't buy games that were reviewed at a 75-80 level, I never would've bought the Fatal Frame games, for example.

Yeah, if this is your style of game or you really want to play it then I wouldn't let the reviews and things totally disuade you. I've gotten more fun out of some 70-80 rated games than others that were 90+. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you go in knowing the shortcoming and/or are willing to accept and look beyond them.

I am really starting to like Gametrailers' reviews. The guy making the comments doesn't try to be all creative, or dazzle you with shit. The last few reviews of their's I have watched have been to the point, cover important topics, and will try to sync up video with issues they found so you can see it as well. They spend over 95% of the review showing you actual footage of gameplay so you can see it for yourself. I think the guy made it reasonably clear that despite all the negative things he pointed out, Assassin's Creed is breaking new ground in gaming in certain areas, and hence got a higher score than it probably otherwise would have.

I appreciate a reviewer that basically says, "Look - here are the issues you are going to run into. Decide for yourself if they are 'gamebreakers' for you."

« Last Edit: November 14, 2007, 12:54:32 PM by Lockdown »

Logged

LD

"Let your enemies fear, for a harlequin of the Laughing God dances at your side."

I am really starting to like Gametrailers' reviews.... The last few reviews of their's I have watched have been to the point, cover important topics, and will try to sync up video with issues they found so you can see it as well.

Aye...I really like their format. The reviews are fairly long, detailed, and they really do try to come at it as objectively as possible. Granted, I'll still take any final scores with a grain of salt, yet the reviews themselves seem to always be fair.